Boris: I did not say more cars=more transit use. I said there was no evidence that more cars harm transit use. “More cars harm transit” was a Rescue Muni anti Prop H argument. I suspect that if one were to factor in population and housing density any correlation between auto density and transit use one way or the other would disappear.

The main point is that being pro auto is not the same as being anti transit (that is how Rescue Muni interpreted Prop H). Further, being anti auto to improve public transit is the wrong strategy. Automobiles subsidize public transit.

BTW I am fully aware that correlation does not equal causation.

Don, you’re right that there is correlation, but there’s certainly no evidence of causation. The neighborhoods in SF that have lower rates of vehicle density also happen to be neighborhoods where walk-commuting is extremely high, thus eating into transit use - but you can hardly call that a negative or claim that that somehow validates the argument that more cars = more transit use.

If you expand your area of data to the entire Bay Area or even just the inner Bay Area, your entire correlation loop falls apart (and actually reverses itself).

It is questionable there was any evidence that Prop H would cause more congestion. It may have actually reduced congestion. But even if Prop H would have caused more congestion, that may have been good for public transit use. Congestion is a good motivator to use public transit, even bad public transit.

There is no evidence that more cars harm public transit use. In SF census tracts there is a positive correlation between vehicle density (the number of cars per square mile) and the percent of people who use public transit to get to work. Many people own cars and take public transit.

Regarding Don’s comment: I don’t make any apologies for being strongly opposed to cars in cities. I think they’re very handy inventions, but a city can only sustain a very small number of them before they start making life miserable. A car just simply takes up too much space. I don’t see why a city should be under any obligation to accommodate more than a few at a time.

That having been said, I do agree that refusing to accommodate cars isn’t by itself a solution; you have to provide usable transit. I’m looking forward to the day that San Francisco actually accomplishes that.

I think you may be confusing the opinions of our members (e.g. commenters on this site and the yahoo group) with the policy of the organization. We unabashedly support transit priority (and opposed 2007 Prop H because we believed it would increase congestion), but I don’t think you’ll find any “car hate” in our policy or recommendations. The whole point of Rescue Muni is to promote better transit so people have ALTERNATIVES to cars.

Thanks
Andrew

There are some good observations in this Curbed SF article and comments. “Better transit equals less need for cars,” and ”the trade-off between cars, mass transit and bikes is not zero sum.”

Too often on Rescue Muni I see irrational car hatred. There seems to be an absurd notion that if you punish automobile drivers enough it will magically improve public transit. The anti Prop H campaign was a good example. Some of the arguments against it were ludicrous.

Rescue Muni would be better served by focusing on transit lovers and ignoring car haters.